Whether right or not, it's clear that the union movement is
fearful that the impending wave of industrial relations reform
legislation will put it out of business. In response, it has
launched a media campaign to pressure the Federal Government to
limit the reforms.

An eight-week strike, picket and media assault against a small
Dandenong manufacturer highlights the campaign that can hit any
company.

Kemalex Plastics is a family owned, Adelaide based automotive
industry supplier that started in 1947. About a decade ago, it
decided to go down the independent contractor path. As employees
left and the company grew, all new staff were engaged as
self-employed contractors through labour hire. The family says this
has helped change the culture of the company to a total business
focus.

In 2002, Kemalex bought a small, financially troubled plastics
plant in Dandenong. It believed that by replicating its Adelaide
approach, it could make Dandenong profitable.

The company negotiated an agreement with the National Union of
Workers that allowed the use of independent contractors.

No employees were asked to become independent contractors but
new people came through labour hire. As in Adelaide, contractors
receive higher remuneration than employees.

But in negotiating the 2005 agreement, the NUW announced that
the independent contractors had to go. The company declined and the
NUW began a strike involving about half the staff.

While strikes are normal, the intense media campaign conducted
against Kemalex is unusual. Initially the unions used ABC radio and
television, then suburban newspapers and leaflet drops until the
campaign gained mainstream media coverage.

The strike turned violent when about 40 non-Kemalex unionists
moved in to run the picket. Federal Labor MPs began a steady stream
of picket line visits creating media opportunities.

Such has been the dedication of the unions to the anti-Kemalex
campaign that striking employees have been paid by the union while
on strike and contractors have been woken at their homes by union
officials offering them "thousands" and alternate jobs if they
would complain against Kemalex.

The headline issue being run by the unions is that Kemalex is
forcing "low paid migrant women" to become contractors.

Kemalex denies this and the unions have failed to produce
evidence to back their claim. However, when such claims receive
repeated media exposure they become part of the political
backdrop.

This appears to be the purpose of the union-driven media
campaign against Kemalex as opposed to a normal but extended
strike.

Now the name "Kemalex" is being used as a symbol of the alleged
employer exploitation that will occur if the Federal Government's
legislative reforms are passed. Kemalex is being used as a public
relations battering ram in a union-organised but party-political
scare campaign.

The tragedy in all this is that Kemalex and the people who work
in the business have suffered financial damage. Kemalex saved the
jobs of 60 or more people who faced losing their work in 2002
before the company bought the Dandenong plant. Jobs at Kemalex are
probably once again at risk.

What was initially a low level industrial disagreement has been
escalated and extended through a national media campaign of
political posturing. The company didn't do this. The unions
did.

Australian manufacturers face severe competitive pressure but
it's no wonder that the idea of undertaking needed labour reform
inside businesses must appear daunting to managers.

The Federal Government may achieve legislative reform but
whether or not managers feel they have the complex media and other
skills to fix problems is a big question. Perhaps that's what the
anti-Kemalex, union media campaign sought to achieve; to instil
reform fear in managers.